By Tim Dunlop
Photo: The dismissal of the Whitlam government started a slow decline in political debate. (National Library of Australia)
You think social media is to blame for our poor political debate? Think again. There are six moments in our recent history that have taken a battering ram to the body politic, writes Tim Dunlop.
It has become a constant refrain in the mainstream media to lament the failing and falling standards of political debate in Australia. Much of the blame is laid at the feet of social media, which is almost universally condemned as a blight on the body politic.
Back in the early 2000s exactly the same things were said about blogs and bloggers.
Now, by all means, social media has its failings, and there is much to be said about the way some people use it. But social media is not the originator of what ails us and to focus on it is to confuse cause with effect.
To illustrate what I mean, here are six matters that have done infinitely more harm to public debate and people's confidence in our democratic process than blogs or comment threads, or social media more generally. They are examples of how cynicism is generated when those with power over our lives decide they don't have to play by the rules they insist everybody should play by.
1. The Dismissal
Something snapped when, first, the Fraser-led opposition blocked supply, and, second, the Queen's representative actually sacked the prime minister. The usual conservative argument is the sacking of the Whitlam government was vindicated by the subsequent election result when Malcolm Fraser won convincingly. But that misses the point. By blocking supply the Coalition signalled that power trumped everything, even - or especially - the so-called conservative regard for tradition.
The conservative press and conservative intellectuals have been rationalising the act ever since and it is that rationalisation, that willingness to abandon their own principles and to argue that black is white, that has helped set the tone and parameters for politics ever since.
2. Paul Keating and L-A-W tax cuts
Paul Keating was a politician of substantial achievements who nonetheless conducted himself as if he was working for Tony Soprano. Or against him.
In some ways he raised the standards of political debate and did much to educate the public and the media about the complexities of running a national economy, but his skill in this area was matched by his skill at personal abuse.
As funny as some of that was, I doubt anyone would argue it was elevating for the body politic. (On a purely practical level, it was bad politics in that it provided the rhetorical space into which John Howard positioned himself as the civil alternative.) But "civility" is not the issue. It was the broken promise of the L-A-W tax cuts that really marked Keating's contribution to the idea that anything goes, that in the long game of power politics, truth is dispensable.
3. John Howard's "core promises"
Howard came to power very much as the antidote to Keating. He was sold as the safe pair of hands, the decent conservative who would "restore" dignity to the political process.
What a bill of goods that turned out to be, beginning with the "core promises" fiasco.
There was nothing new about a government breaking election promises, but there was something new about the barefacedness with which Howard plied the ancient art of spin. His assertion that his commitments could be divided into core and non-core took rationalisation to a whole new level, though most in media ignored it on the grounds that he continued to win elections.
Howard and the media concluded that voters "didn't care" about this sort of deception and so began the myth of Howard's political genius, his veneration as invincible by sections of the media, and the long campaign to vilify anyone who dared criticise him (I'm sure you all remember the "Howard Haters" tag).
Is there anything more damaging to the democratic process than a politician allegedly vindicated in his efforts to fudge the truth?
4. Children Overboard
We are still paying the price for the misinformation spread by the Howard government about some asylum seekers allegedly throwing their children into the water (they didn't).
The accusations served to vilify people who didn't deserve to be vilified, while opening one of the great festering sores of Australian politics. It is still seeping pus into our national conversation, and it is hard to think of an issue that was more damaging to voter trust and the integrity of politicians.
Hang on, no it isn't.
5. Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction
The misinformation, lies and deception about Saddam Hussein's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction in many ways represents the pinnacle of the way those in power have completely trashed the contract of trust between themselves and the rest of the nation.
Its scale was international and it was aided and abetted by sections of the media who - from The New York Times to the Murdoch empire - made a mockery of the idea of the media as a fourth estate.
Howard was part of this "coalition of the willing to mislead the voters" and even went so far as to accuse anti-war protesters of "giving comfort" to Saddam.
By 2007, Howard was so on the nose, was so distrusted, that he became only the second prime minister in our history to lose his own seat at a federal election.
6. Rudd v Gillard
The Rudd-Gillard leadership fiasco is an almost perfect example of how those in power - and those who report on those in power - completely lose sight of their obligations to the electorate at large and get lost in their own self-interest.
It is the perfect example of what I have called the media-politics death spiral.
So the Labor Party decides it hates the sitting, popularly-elected prime minister and decides to get rid of him. The new prime minister can't explain to the electorate why this had to happen and so she is seen as compromised.
The vanquished leader decides it is his right to undermine the woman who replaced him and so begins a relentless campaign of white-anting. As Barrie Cassidy has noted, journalists were willing to give Rudd anonymous cover in this campaign because, hey, it's a good story and, you know "ethics": you can't reveal your sources, even when you know the source is a self-serving troublemaker.
It doesn't matter that Gillard and Rudd can point to real political achievements. Their conflict paved the way for the election of Tony Abbott - they made him possible - and he is now happily undoing many of their signature policies.
Meanwhile, they have both left parliament, left Labor in ruins, and are drawing their parliamentary pensions.
The list above is far from comprehensive, but the point is, they are examples of the way in which those with actual power do far more harm to the democratic process and alienate citizens from political debate than any number of rude or ill-informed tweets, Facebook updates or blog posts.
The amateur troublemakers of social media have got nothing on the professionals, and the sooner the media stop wasting their limited resources wringing their hands about "trolls" and the like, the sooner we might all be able to focus on the real causes of what ails us.
Tim Dunlop is the author of The New Front Page: New Media and the Rise of the Audience. View his full profile here.
